![]() | Ambivalent sexism was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 30, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TheSpecialUser ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There are pervasive violations of neutral point of view in this article. They can all be summed up by this quote from the article: "For the purposes of this article, sexism toward women will be the focus, as it is most relevant to the definition and study of ambivalent sexism." Ummonk ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just thought I'd mention it, because there's no way I'm going to rewrite it, but someone ought to. There almost seems to be a real article hiding under all the term-paper-ese.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I know I said I wasn't going to do anything, but obviously if I weren't OCD I wouldn't be up messing with the pedia anyway. These sentences: "Sexism, like other forms of prejudice, is a type of bias about a group of people. Sexism is founded in conceptualizations of one gender as being superior or having higher status than another gender in a particular domain, which can lead to discrimination." The first is just a tautology. The second is too simplistic to be true. What about Marxist feminist analyses, just for one instance? It's possible to theorize sexism in any number of ways other than this. Perhaps the "conceptualizations" are epiphenomenal? Is this in the source? I can't lay my hands on a copy right now, so it's impossible to tell if Glick and friends really say this, in which case I guess it can stay, or if it's just a case of a-little-learning-is-a-dangerous-thing-itis. I'm going to stop ranting now and see if anyone else cares about this kind of nonsense, which is pervasive in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this sentence either: For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. Do Glick and Fiske actually say that? What about Charlotte Perkins Gilman, e.g.? I know she's not a psychologist, but someone must have caught on to benevolent sexism before 199x, right? What about Friedan even? It's not actually plausible that this is true.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The recent, new version has this 'Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent so they are inferior to men and vice versa),' I don't see how incompetence can be subjectively positive. '[T]he ideas that women need to be protected by men and are not capable of themselves' makes no sense. One is not capable of oneself, it is a non sequitur. (Perhaps I am missing something). Here's the diff [1] Dbrodbeck ( talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The citation links to a study that shows gendered wording in job ads sustains gender inequality. It doesn't show that research has consistently supported SDT. We need a secondary source to back up this claim. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zy175311460 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 ( talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zy175311460 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 ( talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Ambivalent sexism was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 30, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TheSpecialUser ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There are pervasive violations of neutral point of view in this article. They can all be summed up by this quote from the article: "For the purposes of this article, sexism toward women will be the focus, as it is most relevant to the definition and study of ambivalent sexism." Ummonk ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just thought I'd mention it, because there's no way I'm going to rewrite it, but someone ought to. There almost seems to be a real article hiding under all the term-paper-ese.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I know I said I wasn't going to do anything, but obviously if I weren't OCD I wouldn't be up messing with the pedia anyway. These sentences: "Sexism, like other forms of prejudice, is a type of bias about a group of people. Sexism is founded in conceptualizations of one gender as being superior or having higher status than another gender in a particular domain, which can lead to discrimination." The first is just a tautology. The second is too simplistic to be true. What about Marxist feminist analyses, just for one instance? It's possible to theorize sexism in any number of ways other than this. Perhaps the "conceptualizations" are epiphenomenal? Is this in the source? I can't lay my hands on a copy right now, so it's impossible to tell if Glick and friends really say this, in which case I guess it can stay, or if it's just a case of a-little-learning-is-a-dangerous-thing-itis. I'm going to stop ranting now and see if anyone else cares about this kind of nonsense, which is pervasive in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this sentence either: For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. Do Glick and Fiske actually say that? What about Charlotte Perkins Gilman, e.g.? I know she's not a psychologist, but someone must have caught on to benevolent sexism before 199x, right? What about Friedan even? It's not actually plausible that this is true.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The recent, new version has this 'Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent so they are inferior to men and vice versa),' I don't see how incompetence can be subjectively positive. '[T]he ideas that women need to be protected by men and are not capable of themselves' makes no sense. One is not capable of oneself, it is a non sequitur. (Perhaps I am missing something). Here's the diff [1] Dbrodbeck ( talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The citation links to a study that shows gendered wording in job ads sustains gender inequality. It doesn't show that research has consistently supported SDT. We need a secondary source to back up this claim. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zy175311460 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 ( talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zy175311460 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 ( talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)